Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Proof of Stokes' theorem

  1. Apr 8, 2017 #1
    How would one prove the Stokes' theorem for general cases? Namely that $$ \int_{\partial M} W = \int_M \partial W$$ where ##M## is the manifold.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 8, 2017 #2

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    The exterior derivative of the differential form ##\omega## is normally written ##d\omega##.

    There should be at least an outline of a proof in any textbook covering it.
     
  4. Apr 8, 2017 #3
    Ok. I have tried a derivation. Can this be considered valid?

    ##M = \int dM## and (maybe) ##\int_{a}^{b}dM \approx dM## if ##|b-a| <<1##
    So, ##M## could be written as $$M = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n \times \lim_{(b\ -\ a) \longrightarrow 0} \int_{a}^{b}dM = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n \ dM$$
    So, $$\int_M dw = \int_{\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n \ dM} dw \ \text{,}$$ which we can split in $$\int_{dM} dw + \int_{dM} dw + \int_{dM} dw \ + \ ...$$
    Now, deriving both sides of ##\int_{\partial M} w = \int_M dw## with respect to ##M## (and using the above), we get ##w = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}n \ dw##, which I guess is correct.

    I know that this is not a derivation of the theorem, anyways maybe it is a proof that the theorem is correct.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2017
  5. Apr 9, 2017 #4

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    To be perfectly honest, it seems that you are not at all familiar with these concepts. Essentially nothing that you proposed above is a valid identity and your notation is severely scrambled.
     
  6. Apr 9, 2017 #5
    So are you saying that ##w## is not equal to an infinite sum of its differentials ##dw##
    And are you saying that a integral over an interval ##M## cannot be decomposed into integrals over infinitely many intervals between the end-points of ##M##
     
  7. Apr 9, 2017 #6

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    No, I am saying that essentially everything you have written shows that you do not really understand what the integral of a differential form means.
    This makes no sense whatsoever. You need to make up your mind whether ##M## is the manifold or whether it is a differential form. Regardless there is no integral over an interval from ##a## to ##b## and even in the simple case of a one-dimensional integral over a single variable ##M## that does not make sense. Also, an integral of a differential form is not a manifold nor a differential form, it is a number.

    This is just delving deeper with more misconceptions.

    Here it is not even clear what you consider ##dM## to be. ##\partial M## that appears in Stokes' theorem is the boundary of ##M##, not a small part of ##M##.

    You cannot differentiate with respect to a manifold. What do you think the result would be?

    To me it seems clear that you need to go back and study the basics of calculus on manifolds, check in detail what differential forms are and how their integrals are defined. You will not get the right result by just guessing.
     
  8. Apr 9, 2017 #7
    Oh, I thought it was a small part of ##M##.
    Yes, I know it. So a way of doing things right would be to map ##M## into an interval in ##\mathbb{R}^m## (##m## is the dimension of ##M##), through a function ##\phi##, so that we would change all the ##M## in the integrals by ##\phi (M)##? If so, would my indentities become valid?
     
  9. Apr 9, 2017 #8

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    No. I am sorry to be so blunt, but it seems you do not have the prerequisite understanding of differential forms and their integration needed for Stokes' theorem. Again, I suggest going back to the basics until you really understand them.
     
  10. Apr 9, 2017 #9
    Ok, so I'll read some texts on the subject before I come back here with another thread.
     
  11. Apr 17, 2017 #10

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    as i recall, stokes' theorem is just the fundamental theorem of calculus, plus fubini's theorem. i suggest reading lang's analysis I, chapter XX; at least that's where i became happy with it.

    well since you asked about general cases, then you augment this proof for a rectangle by a partition of unity argument to globalize it. but the rectangle case is really the main idea.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Proof of Stokes' theorem
  1. Stokes theorem (Replies: 4)

  2. Stokes' Theorem Proof? (Replies: 5)

Loading...